Chem. Inorg. 2008, 47, 535542
Synthesis and Characterization of the Cycloheptatrienyl Tantalum Mixed-Sandwich Compounds (C5R5)Ta(C7H7)
Wontae Noh and Gregory S. Girolami* School of Chemical Sciences, UniVersity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 600 South Mathews AVenue, Urbana, Illinois 61801
Received August 10, 2007
The molecule (cycloheptatrienyl)(cyclopentadienyl)tantalum, (C5H5)Ta(C7H7) (1), and its methylcyclopentadienyl and pentamethylcyclopentadienyl analogues (C5H4Me)Ta(C7H7) (2), and (C5Me5)Ta(C7H7) (3) have been synthesized by magnesium reduction of the corresponding (C5R5)TaCl4 species in the presence of cycloheptatriene. The crystal structures of 2 and 3 show that the two rings are planar and essentially parallel to each other. Interestingly, the TaC distances to the C7H7 ring are significantly shorter (by about 0.1 ) than those to the cyclopentadienyl ring; the difference reflects stronger bonding to the C7H7 ring. A comparison with the structures of other (C5R5)M(C7H7) shows that the MC distances to the seven-membered ring are especially sensitive to the d-orbital energies of the metal center and its ability to engage in bonding with the ring. For 13, the EPR spectra at room temperature consist of octets due to the tantalum nuclear spin. Both Aiso and giso increase as the number of methyl groups on the cyclopentadienyl ring increases. EPR spectra of 13 as frozen glasses correspond to axial symmetry, and the hyperfine couplings and g factors are deduced from simulations.
Introduction Transition-metal compounds that bear both a sevenmembered cycloheptatrienyl ring and a five-membered cyclopentadienyl ring are interesting examples of mixedsandwich complexes.1,2 Electrically neutral sandwich complexes of formula (C5H5)M(C7H7), or their ring-substituted
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: girolami@ uiuc.edu. (1) Green, M. L. H.; Ng, D. K. P. Chem. ReV. 1995, 95, 439-473. (2) Blenkers, J.; Bruin, P.; Teuben, J. H. J. Organomet. Chem. 1985, 297, 61-67. (3) Van Oven, H. O.; de Liefde Meijer, H. J. J. Organomet. Chem. 1970, 23, 159-163. (4) Kool, L. B.; Rausch, M. D. J. Organomet. Chem. 1985, 297, 289299. (5) Zeinstra, J. D.; De Boer, J. L. J. Organomet. Chem. 1973, 54, 207211. (6) Verkouw, H. T.; Van Oven, H. O. J. Organomet. Chem. 1973, 59, 259-266. (7) Lyssenko, K. A.; Antipin, M. Y.; Ketkov, S. Y. Russ. Chem. Bull. Int. Ed. 2001, 50, 130-141. (8) Tamm, M.; Kunst, A.; Bannenberg, T.; Herdtweck, E.; Schmid, R. Organometallics 2005, 24, 3163-3171. (9) Van Oven, H. O.; Groenenboom, C. J.; de Liefde Meijer, H. J. J. Organomet. Chem. 1974, 81, 379-384. (10) Rogers, R. D.; Teuben, J. H. J. Organomet. Chem. 1988, 354, 169176. (11) Elschenbroich, C.; Plackmeyer, J.; Nowotny, M.; Harms, K.; Pebler, J.; Burghaus, O. Inorg. Chem. 2005, 44, 955-963. (12) Elschenbroich, C.; Schiemann, O.; Burghaus, O.; Harms, K.; Pebler, J. Organometallics 1999, 18, 3273-3277. (13) Engebretson, G.; Rundle, R. E. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1963, 85, 481482.
analogs, are known for Ti,2-7 Zr,2,8,9 Hf,2,10 V,7,11-13 Nb,9,14 Ta,15 Cr,7,9,16-18 Mo,9,19 and W20; in addition, corresponding cations are known for M ) Nb,21 Cr,22,23 Mn,24,25 and Ru,26,27 and anions for M ) Ti,28 Nb,21 and Cr.29 Some of these compounds have been considered as precursors for the deposition of metallic thin films.30,31
(14) Green, M. L. H.; Hughes, A. K.; McGowan, P. C.; Mountford, P.; Scott, P.; Simpson, S. J. J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans. 1992, 15911600. (15) Green, J. C.; Green, M. L. H.; Kaltsoyannis, N.; Mountford, P.; Scott, P.; Simpson, S. J. Organometallics 1992, 11, 3353-3361. (16) King, R. B.; Bisnette, M. B. Tetrahedron Lett. 1963, 4, 1137-1141. (17) King, R. B.; Bisnette, M. B. Inorg. Chem. 1964, 3, 785-790. (18) Fischer, E. O.; Breitschaft, S. Angew. Chem. 1963, 75, 94-95. (19) Green, M. L. H.; Ng, D. K. P.; Tovey, R. C.; Chernega, A. N. J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans. 1993, 3203-3212. (20) Green, M. L. H.; Ng, D. K. P.; Wong, H.-V. J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans. 1993, 3213-3217. (21) Green, M. L. H.; Mountford, P.; Mtetwa, V. S. B.; Scott, P.; Simpson, S. J. J. Chem. Soc., Chem. Commun. 1992, 314-315. (22) Fischer, E. O.; Breitschaft, S. Chem. Ber. 1966, 99, 2905-2917. (23) Furlani, C.; Furlani, A.; Sestili, L. J. Electroanal. Chem. 1965, 9, 140148. (24) Fischer, E. O.; Breitschaft, S. Chem. Ber. 1966, 99, 2213-2226. (25) Fischer, E. O.; Breitschaft, S. Angew. Chem. 1963, 75, 167. (26) Meyer-Friedrichsen, T.; Wong, H.; Prosenc, M. H.; Heck, J. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 2003, 936-946. (27) Farrell, T.; Meyer-Friedrichsen, T.; Malessa, M.; Haase, D.; Saak, W.; Asselberghs, I.; Wostyn, K.; Clays, K.; Persoons, A.; Heck, J.; Manning, A. R. J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans. 2001, 29-36. (28) Gourier, D.; Samuel, E. Inorg. Chem. 1988, 27, 3018-3024. (29) Elschenbroich, C.; Gerson, F.; Stohler, F. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1973, 95, 6956-6961.
10.1021/ic7015963 CCC: $40.75
Published on Web 12/28/2007
2008 American Chemical Society
Inorganic Chemistry, Vol. 47, No. 2, 2008
535
Noh and Girolami Such C5-C7 mixed-sandwich complexes, which are isoelectronic with bis(arene)metal compounds, have been the subject of extensive spectroscopic studies12,32 and theoretical calculations.33 The formal charge of the bound cycloheptatrienyl ring, C7H7, can be considered to be either 1+ or 3-, both of which satisfy Huckels 4n + 2 rule. Photoelec tron spectroscopic studies of (C5H5)M(C7H7) compounds (M ) Ti, Nb, Ta, Mo) suggested that neither formalism accurately describes the metal-ring bonding, owing to the significant mixing of metal and ligand orbital character in the HOMOs.34 Theoretical calculations on the same systems showed smaller contributions of the metal orbitals to the HOMOs and were more consistent with assigning a 3charge to the C7H7 ligand.35 In contrast to the situation for other group 4 to group 6 transition elements, the chemistry of (cycloheptatrienyl)tantalum complexes is relatively poorly developed: only the methylcycloheptatrienyl mixed-sandwich compound (C5H4Me)Ta(C7H7) has been described previously.15 Here, we report the syntheses of the analogous cyclopentadienyl and pentamethylcyclopentadienyl species (C5H5)Ta(C7H7) and (C5Me5)Ta(C7H7) and a comparison of the molecular and electronic structures of these compounds across the series. Results and Discussion Synthesis and Characterization. In 1992, Green showed that the magnesium reduction of (C5H4Me)TaCl4 in the presence of cycloheptatriene afforded the mixed-sandwich compound (C5H4Me)Ta(C7H7).15 These workers reported that they were unable to obtain the unsubstituted compound (C5H5)Ta(C7H7) by this same route. We now find that the method is a general one, although the isolated yield of the unsubstituted compound is low (6%). Thus, reduction of the mono(cyclopentadienyl)tantalum compounds (C5R5)TaCl4 with magnesium in tetrahydrofuran in the presence of cycloheptatriene affords the mixed-sandwich species (C5H5)Ta(C7H7) (1), (C5H4Me)Ta(C7H7) (2), and (C5Me5)Ta(C7H7) (3). Compounds 1 and 2 sublime at 80 C in vacuum, whereas 3 decomposes under these conditions and is best purified by crystallization from pentane. Previously, (C5H4Me)Ta(C7H7) was reported to be blue,15 but in our hands it was red-brown both in solution and in the solid state. (C5R5)TaCl4 + 2Mg + C7H8 f (C5R5)Ta(C7H7) + 2MgCl2 + H Both 1 and 2 give strong molecular ions in their field ionization mass spectra. It is noteworthy that there is no evidence in the mass spectra of the ionization-induced formation of arene tantalum fragments such as (C6H6)Ta+,
(30) Charatan, R. M.; Gross, M. E.; Eaglesham, D. J. J. Appl. Phys. 1994, 76, 4377-4382. (31) Gonsalves, K. E.; Rausch, M. D. J. Inorg. Organomet. Polym. 1991, 1, 131-134. (32) Green, J. C. Organometallics 1996, 15, 4747-4754. (33) Kaltsoyannis, N. J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans. 1995, 3727-3730. (34) Green, J. C.; Kaltsoyannis, N.; Sze, K. H.; MacDonald, M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1994, 116, 1994-2004. (35) Menconi, G.; Kaltsoyannis, N. Organometallics 2005, 24, 1189-1197.
Figure 1. Molecular structure of (C5H4Me)Ta(C7H7) (2).
Figure 2. Molecular structure of (C5Me5)Ta(C7H7) (3).
as has previously been claimed for certain vanadium and titanium analogues.3,6,36 The IR spectrum of C5H5 compound 1 shows two equalintensity bands at 1170 and 1156 cm-1 that are assigned to in-plane C-H deformations of the C7H7 ring,9,37,38 and a band at 1013 cm-1 due to in-plane C-H bending of the C5H5 ring.39-41 The IR spectrum of C5H4Me compound 2 shows similar C7H7 bands at 1171 and 1151 cm-1 and C5H4Me bands at 1036 and 1024 cm-1,6,42 whereas C5Me5 compound 3 shows C7H7 bands at 1167 and 1156 cm-1 and a methyl rocking band at 1033 cm-1 from the C5Me5 ring. No 1H NMR resonances could be located for any of these paramagnetic compounds, although the spectrum of 3 showed small amounts of the diamagnetic hydride (C5Me5)(C7H7)TaH (below). Crystal Structures of (C5H4Me)Ta(C7H7) (2) and (C5Me5)Ta(C7H7) (3). The molecular structures of 2 and 3
(36) Rettig, M. F.; Stout, C. D.; Klug, A.; Farnham, P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1970, 92, 5100-5104. (37) Satink, R. G.; Meijer, G.; von Helden, G. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125, 15714-15715. (38) Harvey, P. D.; Butler, I. S.; Gilson, F. R. Inorg. Chem. 1987, 26, 32-38. (39) Groenenboom, C. J.; De Liefde Meijer, H. J.; Jellinek, F. J. Organomet. Chem. 1974, 69, 235-240. (40) Aleksanyan, V. T.; Garbuzova, I. A.; Gavrilenko, V. V.; Zakharkin, L. I. J. Organomet. Chem. 1977, 129, 139-143. (41) Cotton, F. A.; Marks, T. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1969, 91, 7281-7285. (42) Aoyagi, T.; Shearer, H. M. M.; Wade, K.; Whitehead, G. J. Organomet. Chem. 1979, 175, 21-31.
536 Inorganic Chemistry, Vol. 47, No. 2, 2008
Cycloheptatrienyl Tantalum Mixed-Sandwich Compounds
Table 1. Crystallographic Data for (C5H4Me)Ta(C7H7) (2) and (C5Me5)Ta(C7H7) (3)a 2 temperature/ K wavelength/ cryst syst, space group a/ b/ c/ / deg volume/ 3 Z calculated density/ g cm-1 absorption coefficient/ mm-1 F(000) cryst size/ mm3 range/ deg reflns collected/unique R(int) absorption correction Max. and min. transmission data/restraints/params GOF on F 2 Final R indices [I > 2(I)] wR2 (all data) Largest diff. peak and hole, Felect/ e-3
a
3 193(2) 0.71073 orthorhombic, Pnma 10.3622(4) 12.3659(6) 11.3394(6) 90 1453.01(12) 4 1.862 7.546 788 0.12 0.04 0.02 2.44-28.30 13 987/1876 0.1046 face-indexed 0.862 and 0.549 1876/134/124 0.785 0.0350 0.0632 0.971 and -1.370
193(2) 0.71073 monoclinic, P21/c 12.420(5) 8.047(3) 11.436(5) 113.118(6) 1051.3(8) 4 2.219 10.410 660 0.36 0.05 0.02 1.78-28.30 12 673/2591 0.1192 face-indexed 0.821 and 0.227 2591/0/128 0.763 0.0356 0.0742 1.982 and -1.798
R1 ) ||Fo| - |Fc||/|Fo|, wR2) {[w(Fo2 - Fc2)2]/[w(Fo2)2]}1/2.
Table 2. Selected Bond Distances and Angles for (C5H4Me)Ta(C7H7) (2) Ta(1)-C(1) Ta(1)-C(2) Ta(1)-C(3) Ta(1)-C(4) Ta(1)-C(5) Ta(1)-C(11) Ta(1)-C(12) Ta(1)-C(13) Ta(1)-C(14) Ta(1)-C(15) Ta(1)-C(16) Ta(1)-C(17) Bond Distances (Angstroms) 2.419(8) C(1)-C(2) 2.375(8) C(2)-C(3) 2.369(8) C(3)-C(4) 2.355(8) C(4)-C(5) 2.388(7) C(1)-C(5) 2.274(10) C(1)-C(6) 2.257(10) C(11)-C(12) 2.261(8) C(12)-C(13) 2.307(9) C(13)-C(14) 2.284(9) C(14)-C(15) 2.272(8) C(15)-C(16) 2.262(9) C(16)-C(17) C(11)-C(17) Bond Angles (Degrees) 106.9(8) C(12)-C(13)-C(14) 107.3(7) C(13)-C(14)-C(15) 111.6(9) C(14)-C(15)-C(16) 107.4(8) C(15)-C(16)-C(17) 106.6(8) C(16)-C(17)-C(11) 128.4(10) C(17)-C(11)-C(12) 1.448(11) 1.466(13) 1.359(12) 1.406(12) 1.441(11) 1.463(12) 1.446(15) 1.404(15) 1.445(14) 1.415(12) 1.391(13) 1.385(14) 1.319(14) 129.2(9) 125.5(9) 129.0(9) 128.8(8) 132.4(10) 126.6(11)
C(1)-C(2)-C(3) C(2)-C(3)-C(4) C(3)-C(4)-C(5) C(4)-C(5)-C(1) C(5)-C(1)-C(2) C(11)-C(12)-C(13)
were determined by X-ray crystallography (Figures 1 and 2); crystallographic data and important bond distances and angles are given in Tables 1-3. In 2, the planar 5-C5H4Me and 7-C7H7 rings are essentially parallel to each other (dihedral angle ) 1.7). For the five-membered ring, the Ta-C distances to the proton-bearing carbons range from 2.355(8) to 2.388(7) , whereas the Ta-C distance to the methyl-bearing carbon is slightly longer, 2.419(8) . For the C7H7 ring, the Ta-C distances range from 2.257(10) to 2.307(9) . These latter distances are significantly shorter (by about 0.1 ) than those to the five-membered ring and suggest that the C7H7 group is bound more strongly to the tantalum center.5,13,21 Interestingly, DFT calculations on (C5H5)Ta(C7H7) find the same structural feature: the Ta-C(C5) and Ta-C(C7) distances are predicted to be 2.465 and 2.372 by BLYP, and 2.423 and 2.355 by PBE, respectively.35 All of these distances are longer than those found in the X-ray structure of 2, but
the 0.1 shorter distance to the C7H7 ring matches the difference seen experimentally. We will return to this point below. Crystals of 2 are isostructural with those of its molybdenum analog:19 they have the same space group, P21/c, and very similar unit cell dimensions. The M-C distances to the five-membered ring in the molybdenum compound (C5H4Me)Mo(C7H7) show the same pattern seen for 2: the Mo-C distances to the proton-bearing carbons range from 2.304(5) to 2.317(5) , and the distance to the methyl-substituted carbon is slightly longer at 2.334(4) .19 Most of the crystals of pentamethylcyclopentadienyl complex 3 did not diffract well and were unsuited for crystallographic study; in retrospect, these poorly diffracting crystals probably contain pure 3. A few crystals were found from which data could be collected; these crystals were isomorphous with those of the Ti,4 Zr,10 and Hf10 analogs of 3 (same space group and similar unit cell dimensions). Despite this similarity, the data crystal proved to be a mixture of 3 and the hydride (C5Me5)(C7H7)TaH, small amounts of which were present in samples of 3 as shown by NMR spectroscopy (above). The hydride ligand is probably generated by the activation of cycloheptatriene43-47 or of the thf solvent. The synthesis and structure of pure samples of (C5Me5)(C7H7)TaH will be discussed in detail elsewhere.48 Here, we will limit our discussion to the structure of sandwich compound 3.
(43) Blackborow, J. R.; Hildenbrand, K.; Von Gustorf. Ernst, K.; Scrivanti, A.; Eady, C. R.; Ehntolt, D.; Krueger, C. J. Chem. Soc., Chem. Commun. 1976, 16-17. (44) Herbert, B. J.; Baik, M.-H.; Green, J. C. Organometallics 2004, 23, 2658-2669. (45) Bachmann, B.; Heck, J. Organometallics 1991, 10, 1373-1376. (46) Van Oven, H. O.; De Liefde Meijer, H. J. J. Organomet. Chem. 1971, 31, 71-74. (47) Green, M. L. H.; Newman, P. A. J. Chem. Soc., Chem. Commun. 1984, 816-817. (48) Noh, W.; Girolami, G. S. Manuscript in preparation.
Inorganic Chemistry, Vol. 47, No. 2, 2008
537
Noh and Girolami Each molecule of 3 lies on a mirror plane, which passes through the tantalum atom and a one ring carbon of each of the C5Me5 and C7H7 rings. In (C5Me5)Ta(C7H7), the 5-C5Me5 and 7-C7H7 rings are planar and essentially parallel to each other, with a dihedral angle of 3.2 (Figure 2). The Ta-C distances to the C5Me5 ring carbons, which range from 2.360(8) to 2.384(5) , are very similar to those found in 2. The Ta-C distances to the C7H7 ring carbons, which range from 2.21(2) to 2.28(2) , show a little scatter. These ring positions are made somewhat uncertain owing to the presence in the crystal of the admixed tantalum hydride. Structural Comparisons of (C5R5)M(C7H7) Complexes as a Function of M. In compounds of the type (C5R5)M(C7H7), the bond distances to the five- and seven-membered rings vary in an interesting and systematic way as a function of M. Let us define as the average M-C(C5) distance minus the average M-C(C7) distance in a (C5R5)M(C7H7) compound. Interestingly, the value of depends strongly on the nature of the metal: +0.03 (Cr),7 +0.06 (Mo),19 +0.07 (V),7 +0.11 (Ta), +0.12 (Ti),7 and +0.17 (Zr).8 In other words, for Cr the Cr-C(C7) and the Cr-C(C5) distances are essentially equal, whereas for Zr the Zr-C(C7) bonds are 0.17 shorter than the Zr-C(C5) bonds. The above ordering of metals from small to large values of is very similar to the ranking of these same metals according to their covalent radii: the single-bond metallic radii vary as Cr (1.176 ) < V (1.224 ) < Mo (1.296 ) < Ti (1.324 ) < Ta (1.343 ) < Zr (1.454 ).49 Empirically, the value of becomes larger as the metal radius becomes larger (Figure 3). If we plot the M-C distances themselves as a function of metal radius (Figure 4), we find that the M-C(C5) distances track the metal radius as expected (i.e, with a slope of near 1). In contrast, in Figure 4 the line for the M-C(C7) distances as a function of metal radius has a slope of near 0.5. This result is intriguing. We have at least two questions to answer: (1) why is the M-C distance to the sevenmembered ring always shorter (and sometimes considerably shorter) than to the five-membered ring, and (2) why does the difference appear to be correlated with the size of M, being large for large metals and essentially zero for smaller ones?
Table 3. Selected Bond Distances and Angles for (C5Me5)Ta(C7H7) (3)a Ta(1)-C(1) Ta(1)-C(2) Ta(1)-C(3) Ta(1)-C(11A) Ta(1)-C(12A) Ta(1)-C(13A) Ta(1)-C(14A) C(1)-C(2) C(2)-C(3) C(1)-C(2)-C(3) C(2)-C(1)-C(2) C(2)-C(3)-C(3)
a
Figure 3. Plot of ) M-C(C5) - M-C(C7) for known (C5R5)M(C7H7) compounds. Key: 9 ) C5H5/C5H4Me compounds; 0 ) C5Me5 compounds.
Figure 4. Plot of M-C distances for (C5R5)M(C7H7) compounds. Key: M-C(C5) distances are shown in black, M-C(C7) distances are shown in white, distances for C5H5/C5H4Me compounds are shown as squares, and distances for C5Me5 rings are shown as circles.
Geometric considerations may play a role in answering these questions. The bonding between a metal center and a cyclic system is well known to depend on their relative sizes. For example, the peripheral substituents on CnRn rings are invariably displaced out of the ring plane toward the metal center for n > 5, but are displaced away from the metal
2.360(8) 2.375(6) 2.384(5) 2.21(2) 2.271(16) 2.296(15) 2.29(2) 1.416(7) 1.410(7) 108.3(5) 107.9(7) 107.7(3)
Bond Distances (Angstroms) C(3)-C(3) C(1)-C(4) C(2)-C(5) C(3)-C(6) C(11A)-C(11A) C(11A)-C(12A) C(12A)-C(13A) C(13A)-C(14A) Bond Angles (Degrees) C(11A)-C(12A)-C(13A) C(12A)-C(13A)-C(14A) C(13A)-C(14A)-C(13A) C(12A)-C(11A)-C(11A)
1.43(1) 1.508(10) 1.506(7) 1.512(7) 1.410(7) 1.410(6) 1.397(7) 1.410(6)
129.3(7) 129.0(4) 127.3(8) 127.9(4)
Primed atoms generated by the transformation x, -y + 3/2, z.
538 Inorganic Chemistry, Vol. 47, No. 2, 2008
Cycloheptatrienyl Tantalum Mixed-Sandwich Compounds
center for n < 5.50,51 These displacements increase the overlap between the system and the d orbitals of the metal atom. This phenomenon is visualized in terms of a rehybridization of the system so that the constituent p atomic orbitals on each carbon atom are no longer perpendicular to the plane of the ring. For a larger ring, the rehybridization causes the lobes of the p orbitals proximal to the metal to point inward toward the metal center. In the present case, similar geometric considerations suggest that the relatively large C7H7 ring should form the strongest overlap with the d orbitals of large metals such as zirconium, but should overlap more poorly with smaller metals such as chromium, consistent with the experimental trends seen in Figures 3 and 4. This geometric argument can be complemented by an electronic argument based on the MO diagram of (C5H5)M(C7H7) complexes, which is well understood.35,8,52 The lowest lying d orbital is dz2, which is essentially nonbonding because the carbon atoms of both rings lie very close to the nodal surface of this orbital. As a result, changing the d electron configuration of the metal center from d0 to d1 to d2 (e.g., from Ti to V to Cr) has no direct effect on the bonding with the ligands.53 Instead, the trends in Figures 3 and 4 can be understood in terms of changes in the metal-ligand bonding orbitals. From highest energy to lowest, the filled metalligand bonding orbitals are (1) the bond between the e2 orbitals of the C7H7 ring and the dxy and dx2 - y2 orbitals on the metal, (2) the bond between the e1 orbitals of the C5H5 ring and the dxz/px dyz/py and hybrids on the metal, and (3) the bond between the e1 orbitals of the C7H7 ring and the dxz/px and dyz/py hybrids. For both rings, the totally symmetric a1 orbitals on the rings are core-like and in the (C5H5)M(C7H7) sandwich compounds are essentially unmixed with metal orbitals. The first (and highest-energy) of these metal-ligand bonding orbitals, the bond, is especially sensitive to the nature of the metal. For an early transition metal such as zirconium, the d orbitals are large and high in energy owing to the small value of the effective nuclear charge. As a result, the bonding to the C7H7 ring consists of strong and components, and this bonding is stronger than the bonding to the C5H5 ring, which has only a component. As the metal becomes smaller and the d orbitals become lower in energy and more contracted, the bonding to the C7H7 weakens significantly. These effects completely account for the trends seen in Figures 3 and 4. DFT calculations on a series of (C5R5)M(C7H7) compounds match the experimental data almost exactly: is predicted to be 0.02 for chromium and 0.15 for zirconium and hafnium, with the calculated values for the other group
(49) Pauling, L. The Nature of the Chemical Bond, 3rd ed.; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, New York, 1960; p 256. (50) Kettle, S. F. A. Inorg. Chim. Acta 1967, 1, 303-306. (51) Elian, M.; Chen, M. M. L.; Mingos, D. M. P.; Hoffmann, R. Inorg. Chem. 1976, 15, 1148-1155. (52) Zeinstra, J. D.; Nieuwpoort, W. C. Inorg. Chim. Acta 1978, 30, 103117. (53) Actually, the dz2 orbital is very slightly metal-C7H7 antibonding, but this effect is not sufficient to account for the magnitude of the trends seen in Figures 3 and 4.
Figure 5. EPR spectra of (C5H5)Ta(C7H7) (1), (C5H4Me)Ta(C7H7) (2), and (C5Me5)Ta(C7H7) (3) in toluene at 25 C.
4 to group 6 metals falling between these limits.35,8 Although these papers did not comment on the reasons for this trend, an earlier ab initio SCF-LCAO-MO study52 reached essentially the same conclusions we have articulated above. No crystal structure has been carried out on a niobium compound of the type (C5R5)M(C7H7), but a gas-phase electron diffraction study of (C5H5)Nb(C7H7) has been reported.54 Interestingly, this investigation concluded that the M-C(C5) distances are shorter than the M-C(C7) distances: 2.315(14) versus 2.390(9) , respectively, giving ) -0.1 (vs the +0.1 value expected from Figure 3 and predicted from DFT calculations35). We believe that the distances deduced from the electron diffraction study are almost certainly in error. In general, it will be difficult to distinguish M-C distances to one ring versus the other in such a compound from electron diffraction data, owing to the intrinsically poor resolution of the radial distribution curve. As further evidence that the electron diffraction study is in error, is +0.08 and +0.12 , respectively, in the X-ray crystal structures of the cation (C5H4Me)Nb(C7H7)(thf)+ and the anion (C5H5)Nb(C7H7)-.21 EPR Studies. Paramagnetic transition-metal sandwich complexes such as (C5H5)2M (M ) V, Cr+, Fe+, Co, Ni+),55 (C5R5)2Mn (R ) H,56 Me57), (C6H6)2M (M ) V58, Nb,58 Ta,58,59 Co60), (C5H5)V(C7H7),36 (C5H5)M(C6H6) (M ) Co+,61 Fe62), (C5H5)V(C8H9),45 and (C5H5)Ti(C8H8),63,64 have been extensively characterized by EPR spectroscopy. The EPR spectra of 2 both in solution and as a frozen glass have been reported previously;15 our results are essentially identical,
(54) Mawhorter, R. J.; Rankin, D. W. H.; Robertson, H. E.; Green, M. L. H.; Scott, P. Organometallics 1994, 13, 2401-2404. (55) Ammeter, J. H. J. Magn. Reson. 1978, 30, 299-325. (56) Ammeter, J. H.; Bucher, R.; Oswald, N. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1974, 96, 7833-7835. (57) Robbins, J. L.; Edelstein, N. M.; Cooper, S. R.; Smart, J. C. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1979, 101, 3853-3857. (58) Cloke, F. G. N.; Dix, A. N.; Green, J. C.; Perutz, R. N.; Seddon, E. A. Organometallics 1983, 2, 1150-1159. (59) Cloke, F. G. N.; Green, M. L. H. J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans. 1981, 1938-1943.
Inorganic Chemistry, Vol. 47, No. 2, 2008
539
Noh and Girolami except that we find a somewhat different value for A. In toluene at room temperature, the EPR spectra of all three compounds consist of isotropic octets due to the I ) 7/2 tantalum nuclear spin (Figure 5). No superhyperfine structure attributed to hydrogen atoms was resolved in any of the room-temperature spectra. The tantalum isotropic hyperfine coupling constant Aiso scales linearly with the number of methyl groups on the C5R5 ring: from 61 G for C5H5 compound 1, to 71 G for C5H4Me compound 2, to 113 G for C5Me5 compound 3. This trend indicates that the electron donating methyl substituents on the C5R5 ring shift the unpaired electron density more completely onto the tantalum nucleus. A similar but more subtle linear trend is also seen for the isotropic g factor giso: 1.944 for 1, 1.945 for 2, and 1.949 for 3. The EPR spectra of 1-3 as frozen glasses at 110 K all correspond to axial symmetry. Simulations afford line shapes that agree very closely with those observed (Figure 6). The hyperfine coupling with the tantalum center is highly anisotropic, with A| being considerably larger than A. The values of the isotropic and anisotropic hyperfine splittings clearly show that, in all three compounds, all of these parameters have the same sign. Like Aiso, both A| and A increase linearly with the number of methyl groups on the C5R5 ring: A| increases from 153 G for 1 to 208 G for 3, whereas A increases from 8 to 60 G. Superhyperfine structure due to hydrogen atoms was seen in the spectrum of only C5Me5 compound 3, and the 6.3 G splitting was attributed to the protons on the C7H7 ring. Superhyperfine splittings of 4.6 and 6.1 G have been seen for CpV(C7H7)36 and 6.1 G in (C6H6)2Ta,58 respectively. To our knowledge, the splitting due to the ring protons in 3 is larger than in any other transition-metal sandwich complex, which suggests that there is significant delocalization of the unpaired electron onto the C7H7 ring. The values of the tantalum hyperfine splittings afford insights into the electronic structure of these complexes. A previous photoelectron spectroscopic study of (C5H4Me)Ta(C7H7) suggested that one unpaired electron resides in the a1 HOMO, which has mainly dz2 character.65 This conclusion is consistent with several other findings: the results of DFT calculations,35 the closeness of the g values to 2, and the fact that the EPR spectra are readily observable at room temperature. McGarvey has shown that, for a d1 system with the unpaired electron in an orbital of dz2 character, the hyperfine splittings are given by the following expressions:
66
Figure 6. EPR spectra of (a) (C5H5)Ta(C7H7) (1), (b) (C5H4Me)Ta(C7H7) (2), and (c) (C5Me5)Ta(C7H7) (3) at 110 K (black line ) experiment; red line ) simulation).
A| ) P[- + 4c2/7 - (g - ge)/7] A ) P[- - 2c2/7 + 15(g - ge)/14]
(1) (2)
(60) Bechamp, K.; Levesque, M.; Joly, H.; Manceron, L. J. Phys. Chem. A 2006, 110, 6023-6031. (61) Ramakrishna, B. L.; Salzer, A. K.; Ruppli, U.; Ammeter, J. H.; Kolle, U. Inorg. Chem. 1986, 25, 1364-1368. (62) Rajasekharan, M. V.; Giezynski, S.; Ammeter, J. H.; Oswald, N.; Michaud, P.; Hamon, J. R.; Astruc, D. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1982, 104, 2400-2407. (63) Samuel, E.; Labauze, G. J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans. 1979, 956961. (64) Labauze, G.; Raynor, J. B. J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans. 1980, 24252427. (65) Warren, K. D. Struct. Bonding (Berlin) 1976, 27, 45-159. (66) McGarvey, B. R. J. Phys. Chem. 1967, 71, 51-66.
where P is the dipolar interaction constant, is Fermi isotropic contact term, c 2 is the fraction of dz2 character in the orbital carrying the unpaired electron, and ge ) 2.0023. These equations assume that the spin-orbit parameter is small compared to the energy difference between dz2 and the other orbitals with metal character; for 1-3, this is very likely to be a good assumption. With two observables and three variables (P, , and c 2), there is no unique fit to these equations. A PES study34 and a DFT calculation35 suggest that c 2 is close to 1 for (C5H4R)Ta(C7H7), and a MO study of the analogous vanadium compound gave a value for c 2 of 0.90.36 By using a similar value of 0.90 for c 2 for all three compounds 1-3, we can deduce values for P and (Table 5) from the following rearranged forms of eqs 1 and 2: P ) 14(A| - A)/[12c2 - 17(g - ge)] ) {A| [4c2 - 15(g - ge)] + A[8c2 - 2(g - ge)]}/14(A -A|) (4) Physically meaningful values for P and are obtained only (3)
540 Inorganic Chemistry, Vol. 47, No. 2, 2008
Cycloheptatrienyl Tantalum Mixed-Sandwich Compounds
Table 4. EPR Data for (C5H5)Ta(C7H7) (1), (C5H4Me)Ta(C7H7) (2), and (C5Me5)Ta(C7H7) (3)a Aiso (G) (C5H5)Ta(C7H7) (1) (C5H4Me)Ta(C7H7) (2) (C5Me5)Ta(C7H7) (3)
a
giso 1.944 1.945 1.949
A| (G) 153 166 208
g| 1.989 1.987 1.989
A (G) 8 20 60
g 1.921 1.921 1.927
aH (G)
b b
-0.4 -0.5 -0.7
P (G) 166.6 167.8 171.5
61 71 113
6.3
The deduced values for and P assume that c2 ) 0.9 in eqs 3 and 4 (see text). b Not observed.
if the signs of all of the hyperfine couplings are assumed to be positive; positive signs for the hyperfine couplings were also observed for (C6H6)2Ta.58 The fits show that the dipolar interaction constant P is very similar for 1-3. The magnitude of the Fermi isotropic contact term | | increases from 1 to 2 to 3, a trend that is consistent with the increased donor properties of the C5R5 ring and the consequent higher energy of the dz2 orbital. Experimental Section
All of the syntheses were performed under an argon atmosphere with glove box and Schlenk techniques. Solvents were dried over sodium/benzophenone and distilled under nitrogen immediately before use. The starting materials cycloheptatriene (90%, Lancaster), and magnesium turnings (99.9+ %, Alfa Aesar) were used as received. The compounds (C5H5)TaCl4, (C5H4Me)TaCl4, and (C5Me5)TaCl4 were prepared by following literature procedures.67 IR spectra were recorded on a Nicolet Impact 410 as Nujol mulls between KBr plates. The 1H NMR data were collected on a Varian Unity U500 instrument at 500 MHz. Chemical shifts are reported in units (positive shifts to high frequency) relative to TMS. Microanalyses were performed by the School of Chemical Sciences Microanalytical Laboratory at the University of Illinois, X-ray diffraction data were collected on a Siemens Smart CCD instrument. EPR spectra were recorded in toluene either as solutions or as frozen glasses on a Varian E-122 X band spectrometer in the Illinois EPR Research Center at the University of Illinois. The magnetic fields were calibrated with a Varian NMR Gaussmeter. The EPR simulations were performed on the SIMPIPM program, which is a modified version of QPOW.68 (Cycloheptatrienyl)(cyclopentadienyl)tantalum(IV), (1). To a suspension of (C5H5)TaCl4 (2.0 g, 5.2 mmol) in tetrahydrofuran (70 mL) was added cycloheptatriene (8 mL, 77 mmol). The mixture was cooled to -78 C and added to a mixture of magnesium turnings (2.0 g, 82 mmol) in THF (10 mL) at -78 C. After 15 min, the reaction mixture was slowly warmed to 25 C and was stirred for 3 h. The color of the mixture changed from bright yellow to dark brown. The solution was decanted from the excess magnesium, and the solvent was removed under vacuum to give a dark-brown solid. The solid was extracted with pentane (2 40 mL), and the extracts were combined, filtered, and taken to dryness. The residue was sublimed at 80 C and 0.05 Torr to afford a redbrown solid. Yield: 0.1 g (5.8%). Anal. Calcd C, 42.7; H, 3.59; Ta, 53.7. Found. C, 42.7; H, 4.14; Ta, 52.7. FI-MS (m/z; relative intensity; assignment): 91.0 (8, C7H7+), 337.1 (100, M+). IR (cm-1): 1305 m, 1170 w, 1156 w, 1013 m, 949 m, 853 w, 793 s, 680 m. (Cycloheptatrienyl)(monomethylcyclopentadienyl)tantalum(IV), (2).15 This compound was prepared as described above for 1 except that (C5H4Me)TaCl4 (2 g, 5.0 mmol) was the starting
(67) Tonzetich, Z. J.; Eisenberg, R. Inorg. Chim. Acta 2003, 345, 340344. (68) Nilges, M. J. SIMPIPM; The Illinois EPR Research Center (IERC): University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL, 1...